I can send you a direct link to my PB folder, but I guess I need to try to repair that thread as it's mostly pics. And all the RMAF threads, ugh...

If you have any questions feel free to pm me or email me. There are some parts upgrades that are worth it... Clarity TC caps for the last stage of the power supply filter, AmTrans or Riken gridstoppers, Mills cathode resistors, Jupiter copper output caps, Furutech FT-903(R) RCA jacks, Furutech NCF IEC. Also, a 3P3T switch can be rigged to switch heater between 6 and 12 volts if you want to use 6 or 12SN7.

I'm using Morten's Tortuga LDR before the buffer, which sounds great too. IMO it sounds a lot better with the buffer, I tried it both ways.

Not in terms of a user quota. If you're curious how much space you are using, you can click on the Usage Stats in the left bar of your gallery.

I didn't realize that you could clear cache files.

My 534 images using ~ 27MB space also had 3619 cache files using ~ 110MB space. After clearing cache, the cache files were 534/2.49MB. Someone must have clicked on one of my posts because that just went up to 535/2.50MB.

Not sure why there were (and will be) more cache files than image files (~ 7X) and also not sure what the downside would be except for users waiting a few more ms for an image to be rendered, but maybe if everyone cleared their image cache we could free up a load of server space?

Me too but not because I lost them due to a cleanse, I changed IP and had a bunch of broken links.

Quote

Years ago, I put all of my proverbial eggs (photographs) in one basket. The first forum I joined was the Decware site. I put all my photos on there. One day, Steve decided to wipe out all the galleries and start over. So every photo, every thread was destroyed. I learned my lesson not to rely "one man" to store/host my photos. That's when I chose Photobucket to host. Well, we see how that turned out.

The problem with using AudioCircle to host, is that I'm not just one forum, I'm on several. So JohnR would be paying bandwidth for my whims on where I post photos. And..... there's that whole issue with my eggs in one basket again.

And as JohnR mentions it won't work anyway. I just don't have the time to build a gallery and my IP doesn't provide any space. Then there's the privacy thing where most photo hosts or cloud services automatically place all your files in the public domain for anyone to use without compensation.

Just to be clear, AC provides hosting for images viewed through AC. It doesn't make any sense for AC to provide image hosting for other websites.... I learned that lesson quite early on !

I never did understand why people used "3rd party image hosting" (e.g. photobucket) at all. It used to be you would get "bandwidth exceeded" messages for images hosted on photobucket for example. Now this. I'm sorry but I really have to wonder what people thought was going to happen to their "free image hosting"??

Quote

Then there's the privacy thing where most photo hosts or cloud services automatically place all ayour files in the public domain for anyone to use without compensation.

I think there's another misconception here and I rather doubt that the situation is as you state it. There is, in general, a misconception amongst Internet users that if an image is on the Web, then it is in the public domain. It is not. The person who created the image owns the copyright to it, unless specifically stated otherwise.

With that said, if you upload an image to a website, then obviously you are giving that website permission to display it (that is not the same is giving away your copyright to the image). Any image you upload to AC can be deleted by you, if for some reason you should have a problem with it being displayed on this site.

Just to be clear, AC provides hosting for images viewed through AC. It doesn't make any sense for AC to provide image hosting for other websites.... I learned that lesson quite early on !

I never did understand why people used "3rd party image hosting" (e.g. photobucket) at all. It used to be you would get "bandwidth exceeded" messages for images hosted on photobucket for example. Now this. I'm sorry but I really have to wonder what people thought was going to happen to their "free image hosting"??

I think there's another misconception here and I rather doubt that the situation is as you state it. There is, in general, a misconception amongst Internet users that if an image is on the Web, then it is in the public domain. It is not. The person who created the image owns the copyright to it, unless specifically stated otherwise.

With that said, if you upload an image to a website, then obviously you are giving that website permission to display it (that is not the same is giving away your copyright to the image). Any image you upload to AC can be deleted by you, if for some reason you should have a problem with it being displayed on this site.

Thank you for setting me straight on my misconception of what is and what is not released to the public domain when I upload an image to the internet.

I never did understand why people used "3rd party image hosting" (e.g. photobucket) at all. It used to be you would get "bandwidth exceeded" messages for images hosted on photobucket for example. Now this. I'm sorry but I really have to wonder what people thought was going to happen to their "free image hosting"??

I think there's another misconception here and I rather doubt that the situation is as you state it. There is, in general, a misconception amongst Internet users that if an image is on the Web, then it is in the public domain. It is not. The person who created the image owns the copyright to it, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Previously, you could pay about $3/month for a 3rd part plan with more bandwidth if it was exceeded. The jump from $3/mo to $40 and having to pay a year in advance is quite a change most did not see coming.

On photobucket your photos are shared/public unless you mark your album private, many people didn't realize this. I thought when I marked my main album private all the ones under it would be too but that's not the case either. Every single sub album needs to be changed to private too. Tons of people shared pics they never intended to.

I never did understand why people used "3rd party image hosting" (e.g. photobucket) at all. It used to be you would get "bandwidth exceeded" messages for images hosted on photobucket for example. Now this. I'm sorry but I really have to wonder what people thought was going to happen to their "free image hosting"??

You don't understand Photobucket John. If memory serves, it was $24 a year to host/store my photos. I then shared them on a half dozen forums. It was only when I had a massively popular thread that went was more than a dozen pages on several different forums did I hit the bandwidth limit. But for $2.25 (iirc), I'd buy another tier of bandwidth that would open the photos up again. That only happened to me twice in 11 years.

When I take a photo worth sharing, I share it on those half dozen forums through Photobucket. aaannnddd "done". A few clicks and my photo is "everywhere" I am. As you say, what I "thought" was going to happen, was that they continue to perform a serving we all mutually agreed upon at the predetermined price.

They then decided that it should cost more than a dollar a day. That's pure extortion. No way will I pay more for photo hosting than I do for full coverage car insurance for the same time period.Plus, there's no way I'm going to upload my photo to each and every forum I'm on. That would become a full time job if I had a large topic that was ongoing for some time. I couldn't imagine having my "Father and Daughter speaker build" thread on a half dozen forums if I had to upload those photos to each forum I was on. And like I said earlier, I don't like the idea of my threads being destroyed by one mans whim when he feels there are too many images in his gallery (see my earlier post about Decware). Because, I'm not paying that guy harddrive space and bandwidth to store/host my pictures on his forum. Like you said, {quote} "I'm sorry but I really have to wonder what people thought was going to happen to their "free image hosting"??" When I was using Photobucket for "free", he's still getting paid by advertisers. But apparently they don't feel like their previous charges where near enough.

There just isn't an economically reasonable way of doing this. Not that I've found. So as far as I'm concerned, I just won't be posting any more photographs. Except for on Facebook. They seem to have worked out the bugs for storing and sharing videos and photos.Maybe some forum owners should take a page from Mr. Facebook in that regard. I mean after all, this is just "social networking", just on a specific topic.

What exactly is the "page" from Facebook that you mean? AC hosts its own photos, there's a button underneath the form where you write, it takes like five seconds to add an image to your post.

"Take a page from'...", meaning that they have unlimited free 3rd party photo hosting.My goal would be to find one place to store photos that allow me to display them whenever and wherever I want, for a reasonable price (or free).I know there's a gallery here, I have pictures in it, in fact. But they're limited to here only. I get that, but I'm not going to upload every photo to every forum I'm on. Some are much more time consuming that the one here. In this day and age, moving "ones and zeros" around shouldn't be this hard, or this expensive. That is, after all, all we're doing.

"Take a page from'...", meaning that they have unlimited free 3rd party photo hosting.

Really? That surprises me... Even if so, it sounds like the same thing (as photobucket) all over again. Facebook aren't going to just give away gazigabytes of bandwidth for nothing. And third-party images are hard to make money from - as you pointed out before (I think) it is actually the site displaying the images that does that.

Really? That surprises me... Even if so, it sounds like the same thing (as photobucket) all over again. Facebook aren't going to just give away gazigabytes of bandwidth for nothing. And third-party images are hard to make money from - as you pointed out before (I think) it is actually the site displaying the images that does that.

I guess (for now), FB is making enough on advertising to make it worth their while. I don't know though.

I just thought I would post this (with permission), as I happened to drop by a few forums that I haven't had time to look at in ages.

The admin for one of these forums (who is a web developer professionally by day) fixed this problem on his forum, and also automated the process of archiving the linked photos locally to his forum/website so that they are also not lost should photobucket go under or change their infrastructure behind the scenes.

In the interest of keeping this fix viable as long as possible, if anyone is interested in reaching out to him to contract his professional services in fixing this problem, feel free to drop me a pm and I'll link you to his contact information.

Presumably, spoofing the HTTP referer will "trick" the photobucket server into delivering an image. So a script could download the images and change the references in the posts to point to the local copy. However, it's questionable whether this is ethical - someone may not like what they (photobucket) have done, but I believe it is in their right to set the terms on which their servers deliver content. (I'd be pretty annoyed if someone played the same trick on me...)

Also, it's doubtful they haven't thought of it already, and they could decide to simply block this server if they detect that type of activity. That would wreck it even for people on acccounts that have paid for 3rd-party hosting.

Also, I hope nobody thinks your "anyone" applies to them and tries to send your friend money thinking he can "fix the problem" for them - he can't... sorry...